Hi Paul
General question for you.
What are the three or four major problem areas preventing the rotary from
really catching on as THE solution for general aviation. Cooling ? Optimal
reduction unit ? lubrication ? ignition ? etc ?
These are pretty elemental questions I'm not sure would interest everyone
but I am interested to see where you think the advances need to be made
and
where the weaknesses are.
Thanks
Bill
Education, education and education :)
I still have people asking me; "what about the apex seals?"
The apex seal problem was solved 40 years ago.
In 1973 Mazda had problem with neoprene water
sealing O-rings. They melted when the engine was over heated.
It was dumb on the part of Mazda to use neoprene in the first place.
The problem was widely publicized. The only thing people remembered was
the word "sealing". Consequently people still think apex seals
are a problem.
Pilots are all from Missouri. It is a show me situation.
Until we have dozens of aircraft showing up at Sun & Fun and OSH
the rotary will never take off en mass.
In the mean time it is fuel plumbing details, cooling system design
and cooling plumbing details that give the builders the most trouble.
As far as new converts are concerned they want to see substantial
advantges. Higher HP per pound of engine weight is one of those
advantages. In that regard more people using p-ports will help.
Paul Lamar
Paul,
Efficient cooling system design and detail is the number one problem I've
seen on the lists, followed closely by fuel consumption. Another item I've
seen mentioned often as a sore spot is the lack of PSRU's designed to use
hydraulic CS props. Mistral has one, but they're the only one I've heard
of. Everything else uses fixed pitch or $$$ electric CS.
Another part of the problem, as I see it, is that of trying to retro-fit the
package (engine, cooling system, etc.) into airframes that were designed for
air-cooled engines, resulting in less-than-efficient, less-than-elegant
solutions. Tracy Crook's done a wonderful job, but even he will admit that
his cooling design isn't the most efficient. Same for Powersport...there
just isn't a whole lot of room up front for all this stuff! The best
solution to all of the problems might be as simple (and as complex) as
designing an airframe specifically around the rotary package (making it
aerodynamically clean, well engineered, simple to build, affordable, sexy,
etc. is the complex part).
Michael White
a.k.a. "Moose"
You must remember that the rotary burns auto gas which is a 40 to 50 cent
a gallon advantage over 100LL right there. 20% less cost. The Mazda is only
1 or 2% worse than a Lycoming in terms of gallons per hour.
I place fuel plumbing ahead of cooling system design as it will kill you
faster.
If your careful and plan ahead no problem getting the cooling system under
the
cowl. Most Mazda engine builders flying today are making at least one
serious
mistake. Many of them several. The most common is trying to use the cowl
surface
as part of the duct.
Chuck Dunlap is flying out of Arizona no less and he is complaining
about running too cool. He flies to Sun & Fun and OSH just about
every year. Careful duct design and perfect sealing between duct and rad
pays off big time.
Check out the latest version of How to Cool Your Wankel
http://www.rotaryeng.net/how-to-cool12.html
I have been updating it almost daily. Eventually it will be published
as a book.
Paul Lamar
Thanks Paul
Again, it's all very interesting and hopeful. Are there any final
conclusions on Paul Conners accident yet or is it still pending ?
Thanks, always enlightening
Bill
Nothing yet. It might be years. Please send me pictures and schematics
of your proposed fuel system and I will mention anything that might be out
of line.
Paul Lamar
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2005 All world wide rights reserved.